Re: Emails going to spam folder in gmail

[Michael Brutman via cctalk]

Disclaimer: I don't speak for Google ...

The thread shows a lot of Google bashing.  Insinuating that Google makes it
difficult so that people follow the path of least resistance is part of
that.

For years I had a non-Google backed email system and I did not have
problems with sending or receiving from Gmail.  I helped set up the Google
Apps setup that VCFed.org is using, and we're not noticing any problems
there or having actional reports of problems with email.  I can't speculate
what is going on with individual problems, but generally I believe with
enough digging those problems can be understood and solved.

Large corporations (Google included) are basically a scaling problem,
especially when it comes to customer service.  I think that's pretty
obvious, and stories about YouTube problems and account access are legion.
I don't have a solution that can be applied to the problems on this
thread.  My purpose in posting was to point out that this probably isn't a
matter of market share or people forgetting not to be evil; it's a
technical problem.  Getting the configs right is the first step.
Blacklists are also a problem, and clearly sometimes the filters being
applied are wrong.  We try to find and fix these things as they are brought
to our attention.

It took me less than a minute of searching to find this:
https://support.google.com/mail/contact/bulk_send_new

That's the form to contact the Gmail team for getting help with debugging
your mail being marked as spam/phishing attempts, you get SMTP temp-fails
or rejects, or other problems.  (The search term was "problems sending
email to gmail accounts" - go to the first link, follow the workflow, and
assuming all of the preliminary answers to the questions are "I didn't do
anything wrong" then you'll get a link to that contact form.)


Mike


On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 6:23 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> > It seems easier to bash Google than it is to debug the actual problems.
>
> I think this is an unfair characterization of the frustrations people have
> voiced. I agree individual engineers aren't out to get people with private
> mail servers, but:
>
> > There are a lot of factors that
> > need to be considered besides DKIM and SPF.  Google has heuristics which
> > are probably well justified with data, and it works for the vast majority
> > of people.
>
> Stuff like the link you gave
>
> > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126
>
> aren't the problem. The problem is when you're doing all of that, and it
> doesn't work (i.e., you're not part of this "vast majority"). I don't find
> it reasonable to assume everyone who's voiced frustration with Gmail isn't
> doing everything in that list already. When you get to that point, after
> all
> that sweat and work, there's no one to communicate with to find out which
> part of that black box of heuristics is still getting its nose out of
> joint,
> and it doesn't serve Google's interest to put any bodies towards that sort
> of communication because it costs money and it's not their problem.
>
> Plus, well, the more people who need to communicate with a Gmail user, the
> path of least resistance is ... Gmail. That works out pretty well for
> Google.
> From your view in the company, do you see an incentive on their end to work
> with folks like us?
>
> --
>  personal:
> http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
>   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
> ckai...@floodgap.com
> -- Sleep, delicious and profound, the very counterfeit of death. -- Homer
> -
>

Re: Emails going to spam folder in gmail

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> It seems easier to bash Google than it is to debug the actual problems.

I think this is an unfair characterization of the frustrations people have
voiced. I agree individual engineers aren't out to get people with private
mail servers, but:

> There are a lot of factors that
> need to be considered besides DKIM and SPF.  Google has heuristics which
> are probably well justified with data, and it works for the vast majority
> of people.

Stuff like the link you gave

> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126

aren't the problem. The problem is when you're doing all of that, and it
doesn't work (i.e., you're not part of this "vast majority"). I don't find
it reasonable to assume everyone who's voiced frustration with Gmail isn't
doing everything in that list already. When you get to that point, after all
that sweat and work, there's no one to communicate with to find out which
part of that black box of heuristics is still getting its nose out of joint,
and it doesn't serve Google's interest to put any bodies towards that sort
of communication because it costs money and it's not their problem.

Plus, well, the more people who need to communicate with a Gmail user, the
path of least resistance is ... Gmail. That works out pretty well for Google.
>From your view in the company, do you see an incentive on their end to work
with folks like us?

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Sleep, delicious and profound, the very counterfeit of death. -- Homer -

Re: Emails going to spam folder in gmail

[Michael Brutman via cctalk]

It seems easier to bash Google than it is to debug the actual problems.

I work at Google; not on Gmail but on things that many of you use daily.  I
don't believe my colleagues are trying to build market share by annoying
specific users and dropping their mail.  There are a lot of factors that
need to be considered besides DKIM and SPF.  Google has heuristics which
are probably well justified with data, and it works for the vast majority
of people.

Here is a pretty good reference to help you start if you want to figure out
why Gmail hates you: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126


Mike

Re: DEC part number system

[Will Cooke via cctalk]

> 
> It was (iirc) described in DEC STD 012 (the part numbering standard) but
> I don't seem to have that one handy. If you can find it it should
> contain everything you want. I do have (or did have) a DEC STDs CD at
> one point, but my copy of that seems to be missing DEC STD 012. There
> are plenty of DEC STD docs that would rate considerably higher on the
> "confidential" scale than this one and they are freely available, so
> I've no idea why this one might be missing.
> 
> 
> Antonio


Maybe here?
Beware the crud :(
https://manualzz.com/doc/19854183/dec-std-012-1-documentation-identification-conventions-in...


Will


"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." -- Albert Einstein

Re: DEC part number system

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Antonio Carlini

> It was (iirc) described in DEC STD 012 (the part numbering standard) ...
> I do have (or did have) a DEC STDs CD at one point, but my copy of that
> seems to be missing DEC STD 012. ... I've no idea why this one might be
> missing.

It looks like you already uploaded it to Manx:

  https://manx-docs.org/collections/antonio/dec/standards/el-00012-00-.pdf

Looking though that led me to DEC STD 012-2 "Unified Numbering Code for Part
Identifier Class Codes":

  https://manx-docs.org/collections/antonio/dec/standards/el-00012-02-.pdf

which was exactly what I wanted. It's not the thing I remembered, but as DEC's
official list, in some ways it's better (although it's so detailed it's kind
of overkill :-)!


> From: Vincent Slyngstad

> the "Spare Parts List" links on this page are relevant:

Volume II had a brief but early 'class code' list; I made good use of it.


Thanks everone! Much appreciated!

   Noel

vtserver for geezer '11s

[Jacob Ritorto via cctalk]

Hi,
  I modified vtserver to work on pdp11/34 and similar - the older machines
that have the

00 00 00 00
@

odt prompt.

I'm afraid I didn't do a very thorough job (hack night and just wanted to
get it working) and in retrospect I wish I would've made a conditional
argument to put it in this mode.  Perhaps we should collaborate on adding
this properly and adding other desirable features like compression for
incoming "all zero" blocks when pulling images in from real hardware, etc.

It's here if you'd like to use it:

https://github.com/jritorto/vtserver

You can run it with ./a.out -odt to facilitate its talking to the pdp at
power-on and loading its initial boot sequence via odt in octal.  You have
to run the primary bootstrap with L 14 and S  because I botched
the parsing a bit in my rush to get things going.

thx
jake

Re: DEC part number system

[Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk]

On 12/31/2020 12:48 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

So, DEC part numbers (xx-y-zz) have a system where the 'xx' says what
_kind_ of part it is; e.g. bootstrap PROMs are all 23-x-yy. I seem to
recall reading at some point something which listed all the xx- codes, and
what they meant - but now I can't find it. A Web search didn't turn it up, and
it's not in the 1974 'engineering handbook'?

Does anyone recall seeing it, and if so, where?


I knew I had the documents, but I couldn't figure out where I originally 
got them.  (They seem to have been converted from TIFF, so maybe highgate?)


Anyway, the "Spare Parts List" links on this page are relevant:
http://www.so-much-stuff.com/pdp8/repair/subst.php


Obviously, I could look through a bunch of print sets, and reconstruct it
(e.g. 90- seems to mean mounting hardware - nuts and bolts, etc) but I'd
rather not put the time and energy into reconstructing the wheel, unless
there's no other way.


These documents are dated July and Sept. 1970, so you may well want to 
do that work anyway, to get a handle on the newer part numbers.


Vince

Re: DEC part number system

[Antonio Carlini via cctalk]

On 31/12/2020 20:48, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

So, DEC part numbers (xx-y-zz) have a system where the 'xx' says what
_kind_ of part it is; e.g. bootstrap PROMs are all 23-x-yy. I seem to
recall reading at some point something which listed all the xx- codes, and
what they meant - but now I can't find it. A Web search didn't turn it up, and
it's not in the 1974 'engineering handbook'?

Does anyone recall seeing it, and if so, where?

Obviously, I could look through a bunch of print sets, and reconstruct it
(e.g. 90- seems to mean mounting hardware - nuts and bolts, etc) but I'd
rather not put the time and energy into reconstructing the wheel, unless
there's no other way.

Noel



I thought that there was something at the beginning of the Options and 
Modules List (aka the "Dick best List") but seemingly not.


It was (iirc) described in DEC STD 012 (the part numbering standard) but 
I don't seem to have that one handy. If you can find it it should 
contain everything you want. I do have (or did have) a DEC STDs CD at 
one point, but my copy of that seems to be missing DEC STD 012. There 
are plenty of DEC STD docs that would rate considerably higher on the 
"confidential" scale than this one and they are freely available, so 
I've no idea why this one might be missing.



Antonio



--
Antonio Carlini
anto...@acarlini.com

DEC part number system

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

So, DEC part numbers (xx-y-zz) have a system where the 'xx' says what
_kind_ of part it is; e.g. bootstrap PROMs are all 23-x-yy. I seem to
recall reading at some point something which listed all the xx- codes, and
what they meant - but now I can't find it. A Web search didn't turn it up, and
it's not in the 1974 'engineering handbook'?

Does anyone recall seeing it, and if so, where?

Obviously, I could look through a bunch of print sets, and reconstruct it
(e.g. 90- seems to mean mounting hardware - nuts and bolts, etc) but I'd
rather not put the time and energy into reconstructing the wheel, unless
there's no other way.

Noel

Re: Hey, I got a Perq_T2 image!!!

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:20 PM Chris Zach via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Well, after waiting almost a month for the USPS to deliver a "Priority
> Mail 1 day" package from Dave I now have the MFM reader card. So I
> started working on these disks I rescued. First up was a ST506 (labelled
> "RD50" by DEC) and a pair of ST412's.
>
> Bad news: No drives spun up
> Good news: You can take the controller board off the drives and spin the
> spindles by hand.
> Better news: The spindles spun (clockwise, viewed from bottom)
> Best news: spinning while powering on got all three to spin up.
>

Congrats!


> So far I imaged the RD50 (possibly a Rainbow or a Pro/350) and one of
> the ST412's. It came up as a PERQ_T2 format and I have two dumps of the
> disk with only one bad sector reported.
>
> Anyone know what to do with this kind of image? I've powered down the
> drives and will store them till I can figure out how to make them run
> more quietly
>

I'd love a copy of the T2 image, and if it has POS filesystems on it I
should be able to extract files.  Regardless I should be able to boot it on
my T2 to find out what's on it...

- Josh


>
> C
>

Hey, I got a Perq_T2 image!!!

[Chris Zach via cctalk]

Well, after waiting almost a month for the USPS to deliver a "Priority 
Mail 1 day" package from Dave I now have the MFM reader card. So I 
started working on these disks I rescued. First up was a ST506 (labelled 
"RD50" by DEC) and a pair of ST412's.


Bad news: No drives spun up
Good news: You can take the controller board off the drives and spin the 
spindles by hand.

Better news: The spindles spun (clockwise, viewed from bottom)
Best news: spinning while powering on got all three to spin up.

So far I imaged the RD50 (possibly a Rainbow or a Pro/350) and one of 
the ST412's. It came up as a PERQ_T2 format and I have two dumps of the 
disk with only one bad sector reported.


Anyone know what to do with this kind of image? I've powered down the 
drives and will store them till I can figure out how to make them run 
more quietly


C

Re: Emails going to spam folder in gmail

[Alexander Schreiber via cctalk]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:18:56AM -0500, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
> > Attempting to pull in this thread a tad, there are relatively simple
> > measures that can be taken to bring a private mail server into compliance
> > with gmail, Amazon, Microsoft level mail server protocol and
> > authentication.  Its not just gmail.  The simplest measures are done with
> > DNS and TLS.  Most of the mail that I see routinely falling into spam
> > folder is from what appears to be spoofed domains.  Many of these are legit
> > messages that dont have a properly configured DNS record, preventing the
> > receiving server from authenticating the FROM domain as owned by the
> > sender.  A simple fix.
> 
> Well, even with proper DKIM mail and SPF records, Google still sometimes
> shafts my mail. No idea why, no one to talk to on how to make it better, no
> options other than "Get a Google mail account".

Why not both?

I run my own mailserver which handles most of my email (both incoming and
outgoing) and I have a GMail account, mostly for the GSuite, calendar
and such. There is one mailing list that I forward via procmail from
my private email to my GMail account (for reading on the go) and that
works - so far, about 2-4 mails from that setup ended up tagged as spam
this year (out of several mails per day, so while annoying, that is below
the noise threshold).

My mailserver has SPF records and TLS enabled for ... ages. I couldn't
be bothered to setup DKIM yet. The only problems I had was when I was
responding to an email from someone using hotmail and hotmail refused
my reply ... well, I probably don't want to talk to Hotmail users
anyway.

 ¯\_(ö)_/¯

Kind regards,
   Alex.
-- 
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
 looks like work."  -- Thomas A. Edison

RE: Zerox System 60

[Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk]

I see P&P labels and I remember driving past P&P in Haslington many times in 
the past, and even visiting once or twice for odd bits and pieces.
Odd such places are now long gone.

Dave

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk  On Behalf Of Adrian Graham
> via cctalk
> Sent: 31 December 2020 11:17
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Zerox System 60
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I’ll get the ‘happy new year’ in now because later on I’ll probably be in bed 
> :)
> 
> Does anyone remember the Zerox System 60? There’s an ebay listing for one
> and a friend of mine says the PC shop he worked for back in the 90s had a
> bunch of them but no info could be found then or now.
> 
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apple-II-with-extras-disk-drives-graphics-
> tablet-Xerox/164616695482  extras-disk-drives-graphics-tablet-Xerox/164616695482>
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Adrian Graham
> Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest private home computer
> collection?
> t: @binarydinosaursf: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs
> w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 

Zerox System 60

[Adrian Graham via cctalk]

Hello folks,

I’ll get the ‘happy new year’ in now because later on I’ll probably be in bed :)

Does anyone remember the Zerox System 60? There’s an ebay listing for one and a 
friend of mine says the PC shop he worked for back in the 90s had a bunch of 
them but no info could be found then or now.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Apple-II-with-extras-disk-drives-graphics-tablet-Xerox/164616695482
 


Cheers,

-- 
Adrian Graham
Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest private home computer collection?
t: @binarydinosaursf: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs
w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk